At this point, do you believe this administration is on YOUR side?

[Ken Burch]

By which I mean, do you believe the president YOU elected, is deep down within, on YOUR side...or on the OTHER side(whoever, in your view, that "other side" is?)

It's a question we all need to ponder at this point, methinks.

(this is a poll about values, not short-term results, btw.)

[cutlassmama]

1. Other...corporation's side

[emilyg]

7. I'm afraid I agree.

[cutlassmama]

2. Other - corporations side

[dionysus]

3. no, they're with the bildeburgers, skull and bones, banksters, pol pot, and stalin.

oh yeah, and the BFEE. i read that one here the other day too. i'm a larouche man from now on...

:eyes:

[Youth Uprising]

20. Nice strawman

So, anyone who feels disappointed in the administration must be a crackpot conspiracy theorist? This isn't a libertarian forum.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

27. Not so sure about that.

The new DU sure isn't what it used to be. :shrug:

[Arkana]

37. There's a big difference between being disappointed

and doing things like comparing Obama to Charles Manson--which, incidentally was done on a "Democratic" website we're not allowed to mention.

[Ken Burch]

75. I hadn't heard of THAT comparision and whoever made it is totally crackerbox

please pm me with the name of the site you're talking about.

[rucky]

4. Deep down, yes.

But he sure has a funny way of showing it.

[JuniperLea]

5. When you are president to all Americans...

And you take that seriously, you should probably lead as such. That's what I'm seeing. I don't like half of what he does, but I do like half of what he does. I think that puts me in the center, and a pragmatist too.

[JoePhilly]

8. BLASHPHEMER!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

12. I know...

I'm wondering why I don't feel, you know... icky.

Ha!

[county worker]

6. It depends where you are on the economic scale.

The poor, the unemployed, the underclass can all fend for themselves.

Obama has figured out that we have become a corporatist society. He is bowing to the corporations and if you are favored by the corporations, he is on your side.

The "most powerful person in the world" asks the Chamber of Commerce to pretty please help the working class!

[Raine1967]

9. YES. I also know something else...

This administration has to deal with the other side. That is a sad reality.

That said: my "other side* might be different from yours. Maybe there should be an OP about "The Other Side" Do we have a consensus on this? :

the OTHER side(whoever, in your view, that "other side" is?)

The poll is silly.

[mix]

10. Of course not. I am not a Wall Street player and I believe

in making the USA a better place by investing in its young people, not in war or failed economic policies.

This presidency has been a disaster for the working people of this country.

43 million in poverty, enormous unemployment...Obama has no idea what to do.

[RoadRage]

11. Closer to "my side" then any other "real" contender...

I agree with about 70% of what Obama has done so far. I wish he'd push harder for gay rights (Marriage for all) but I realize that isn't something he can do alone.

But, compared with the alternative of a Republican - I think he's as good (or better) then what I'll ever see again in my lifetime.

So many people on this board seem to live in an alternative reality world where if it wasn't Obama in the whitehouse.. it would be an Ultra-much-further-to-the-left PERFECT president who never comprimised with the right. That's not the case.. the guy has to get elected by 50.01% of the vote - which means he can't represent only the 20% on the far left.

[Number23]

14. Excellent post.

And I'm with you on agreeing with about 70% of what Obama has done so far. That's about where I stand, maybe as high as 80% on occasion.

[JTFrog]

28. Indeed. n/t

[uponit7771]

30. Mature thoughtful perspectives seem to be few and far between these days, good post

[JoePhilly]

54. +1

[boppers]

76. Well put.

I'd go with about 85%, but yeah, it's a balancing act.

[Godhumor]

13. He has shown every value that I want in a president

Even when I don't always agree with his stance, the man governs a highly divided country. I look at it in terms of what I value in that kind of leader: pragmatic, realistic, intelligent, and more supportive of my overall umbrella of issues than less. On all of those points, he has excelled.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. He says clearly that he is opposed to my equal rights

so it is not a belief, but a fact that he is not on my side on that issue, and that is the issue. He is on the other side, and he promotes that side with gusto and hypocrisy.

[RBInMaine]

16. I suppose those saying he's on "the other side" would have been happier with McSame/Palin. Get real.

[Ken Burch]

19. That was NEVER the only alternative

Nor is the only choice now accepting what the admin. does without question OR "wanting 'President Palin'".

[uponit7771]

31. ...on planet Earth it is. Obama doesn't have the congress nor the left to get him the congress he...

...needs.

[Hello_Kitty]

41. His administration calls the left "fucking retarded" and says we need to be drug tested.

That's the respect they have for the left so please don't tell me it's our fault he's not more progressive.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

42. no, somebody who was in his admin called an IDEA/PLAN some on the left had 'fucking retarded'

there is a large difference between calling an idea as such and claiming that they called the 'left' as a whole it

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Whatevs. It's squashing activism from the left.

After he told us to "hold his feet to the fire".

I have a personal example of this: In the summer of 2009 when HCR rallies and town halls were going on the state party and Obame for America people told single payer advocates in Arizona to put their signs away. Why? Because it would create the appearance that Dems are for a "government takeover of health care" as the teabaggers accused. So right there you had activists from the left being silenced and marginalized by the Democratic establishment. And remember what the idea was that Rahm ridiculed as "fucking retarded"? It was progressive activists pressuring Dem members of Congress for a public option. Heaven forbid!

Again, don't diss the left out of one side of your mouth and then ask why we're not agitating enough for progressive policies.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

62. even if one asks such a thing, there should still be room to point out something foolish is..foolish

Admittedly, Rahm have always had a certain way with words that rubs people the wrong way.(personal understatement of the day)

And unless I'm wrong what he ridiculed(to use your word) was fighting against people whose votes were needed due to them being on the more conservative side.

usually telling somebody "Vote for what we want" and "Your going down" isn't to helpful an argument to get their support

[RBInMaine]

45. Again, get real. Who, then, was a viable alternative? And Obama is the most progressive you're

going to get. So if you have Nader/Sanders/Kucinich pipe dreams, I suggest giving up the pipe.

[Uzybone]

17. skins vs shirts

deep thinking here on DU nowadays

[Armstead]

18. Enh...Sometimes. Sometimes not.

[bigwillq]

21. No. BUT

I feel very few politicians are actually on A side, and actually working for the common good without some other motive, hidden (or not) agenda, an ulterior motive, or for political reasons. They always seem to be on "their" side. That's the nature of a politician, and I get that. But so many of our elected officials seem to be out of touch with the average American and their struggles.

[donheld]

22. Corporate side

[MrSlayer]

23. On the side of the owners.

But we get a few crumbs. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is the difference between forcible rape and getting some lube and a maybe a reach around. Either way you're getting fucked but one is worse than the other.

[snot]

25. shda had option, "no."

Bec. he's clearly NOT on my side.

But I'm not sure he's on the other side. He acts more like he's on the other side, but I think he's kidding himself about it.

[BlueIris]

26. He's on the "side" his handlers tell him to be on.

Which is worse than being on the "other" side. The rest is obfuscation, propaganda and lies. He has no "side," really. He's a cypher, a ghost. It's horrifying.

[mmonk]

29. Other.

He's not on the Republicans' side if that's what you mean though he shares a certain disdain for the "left". I really think he believes working through corporations, he can right the ship. He seems Hamiltonian. Liberals tend to be Madisonian. I just disagree with that ideology.

[nxylas]

32. Deep down, on our side

Unfortunately, waaaay too deep down to actually be detectable through his actions.

[Vinca]

33. I have no idea WTF is going on. The COC speech was disturbing.

[bvar22]

34. I am a "Working Class" American.

This White House and the current leadership in the Democratic Party do NOT represent my economic interests.
If I were a Top One Percenter , maybe I would feel differently.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[Mimosa]

57. Great concise analysis, Bvar.

I was Obama's most enthusiastic supporter. I believed he was genuinely different when he was campaigning. I believed he genuinely cared about US and understood our problems.

Now it appears President Obama is limited to doing what the corporate 'owner class' will allow him to do. What else can explain what he is doing?

[styersc]

71. Too long have I forgotten and suppressed my inner Wellstone.

Thank You for reminding me.

[cottonseed]

35. This is a question pondered by the paranoid recluse.

Is he on your side or the other side, whatever that other side is? What kind of question is this?

It's a big country with a functional government. He's the President of that country. He makes decisions every day that can be vetted by the public (and no, I don't want to hear about conspiracies of secrecy). There is no decision he makes at that level that can be considered for or against only me. It's borderline mad to think otherwise.

[Arkana]

36. My side.

What's your next question, Captain Push Poll?

[Ken Burch]

40. This is a legitimate question and it harms no one.

n/t.

[jaysunb]

66. No, it's a "push poll "

And it harms the efforts some of us put forth to make the country more progressive. :evilfrown:

[Ken Burch]

74. All this poll is doing is measuring the sense of trust people here feel towards the administration

Isn't that a worthwhile question to consider? Isn't it one that the admin ITSELF desperately needs to be asking, rather than JUST dismissively saying "They have nowhere else to go"?

[jefferson_dem]

38. Nah! THAT OBAMER....

Jest like BOOOOOOSH!!111! Fucking Korporatist!

Of course, he's on our side.

[TBF]

39. I am for labor, and this administration works against us. nt

[vi5]

44. No. Point blank, No.

I believe in and advocate traditional democratic policies and priorities. This president and his administration do not.

If he tried at everything and things just failed I'd be o.k. with that. But his continual "pre-emptive strikes" or whatever the fuck it is he claims to be doing when without prompting he advocates or pushes for Republican policies are just pathetic.

His attempts to put the final nails in the coffin of organized labor in this country rather than trying to pick up the pieces from the Bush administration are just the most egregious offense to me that I can think of offhand.

And the bottom line is that nobody who looks at the entire roster of people knowledgable on or in their given subjects and decides that the best people in the country to handle our many, many problems include Larry Summers, Tim Geithnner, Ben Bernake, Gen. Petraeus, Stanley McCrystal and pretty much everyone he's picked for almost every position of any clout, power, or influence (and not just ceremonial figureheads to throw the left a proverbial bone) is not someone who is on my side.

[krabigirl]

46. Definitely not on my side.

[totodeinhere]

47. They are generally on my side, but they are not very efficient at getting anything

done that will help me and other average people.

[zulchzulu]

48. Three words: Consider the alternative

You want seriously fucked-up shit... put Repiglicans fully in all houses of government.

Anyone who thought this was going to be a perfect utopian steam massage session seriously has some reality-defection issues.

[Forkboy]

49. Because the only two options were full Repug madness and Utopia.

"We're not as fucked up as Republicans!" is an an awesome battle cry! Talk about defecting from reality.

[Honeycombe8]

50. If by "my" side, you mean us, the citizens of the country. Yes, of course.

There's no doubt in my mind that that is his main concern: the welfare of the country and its citizens.

[stevenleser]

51. This poll, and those who vote "other side" are appalling. nt

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BklnDem75]

53. What does 'MY' mean?

The Left? The People as in all of the US? As stated, the poll only looks to keep us further divided.

[Splinter Cell]

55. Some of the folks here on DU.....

I just don't know about some of you guys...:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

56. Have you read his proposal for the budget cut for heating/cooling for the poor?

I'm surprised you even feel the need to ask the question.

Policies are either supported by fiscal sanity or they are not, I have not seen
Obama construct nor fight for what I believe would support our nation.

Jospeh Stiglitz, Obama phoned him for advice during his campaign period re: financial crisis. One can only
presume Obama made decisions early on to ignore some of the very best advice on the planet. As a result, we
will continue to pay a heavy price on many levels.

Public funded elections may be our only rescue.

The Dangers of Deficit Reduction
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download ...

America's Socialism for the Rich
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download ...


K&R

[Mimosa]

58. +1,000, Jefferson23

Who can excuse this indefensible proposal?

[Jefferson23]

61. No one can, not today, not ever. n/t

[woo me with science]

59. Let's see. Let me review some of my positions.

Repeal of DADT? Yes! I am glad this happened. We are off to a good start!

Laser focus on jobs. No, wait, I mean on health insurance reform. Well, I WAS wishing that someone would fix the problem of escalating healthcare costs, but I know a lot of people who really needed jobs first.

Getting rid of the public option, even though it was popular? Actually, I was for the public option.

Forcing people to buy really expensive health insurance they can't afford to use? Entrenching the for-profit health insurance companies into our health care system by government mandate? Definitely no.

Let's see. Continuing and expanding wars? Drones? Torture? Oh my god!

Installing a Republican contributor and GE corporate CEO to head the Economic Advisory Panel? Approving the merger of Comcast and NBC?

Tax cuts for billionaires? Are you serious?

Refusing to take social security off the bargaining table? Hey! What? WTF?

Lining up citizens not accused of crimes for naked scans and crotch groping. Oh. my. fucking. god.

Continuing surveillance of Americans/extending the Patriot Act? Huh?

Seeking cuts in heating assistance for impoverished people? Cutting grants for food, shelter, and education in poor communities? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????????



Well, that DADT thing was good.

[JoePhilly]

64. Yea, no other "good things"

[woo me with science]

65. Yeah, how unfair of me to consider the ECONOMY, the WARS, HEALTHCARE, and CIVIL RIGHTS

to be defining policy issues.

:wow: :rofl:

[JoePhilly]

67. If you understood what progress has been made in each, then

maybe you would be making sense.

We've made significant progress on all of these fronts in Obama's first 2 years ... although some hate to admit that.

So please, knee jerk onward.

:shrug:

[woo me with science]

68. Thank you for trying to explain everything to me.

However, I suspect I already read the news at least as closely as you do. :hi:

[JoePhilly]

70. Then you know that ...

The unemployment rate is moving down, GDP is moving up ... troop levels in Iraq have come down to where Obama said they would be by this point in his first term, DADT had been repealed, auto industry saved, unemployment coverage extended, pre-exiting conditions covered, and more.

Sure ... has Obama been perfect, no. Is he the evil person so many claim he is here on DU ... not even close.

[woo me with science]

77. Aw, Joe,

I took the time to write out a whole list of specific policy disagreements, and your complaint is that I implied Obama is "evil"? Then you accuse ME of black and white thinking, when you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge a single point I made? Not ONE? Heck, I at least said that I liked DADT. Do you see the irony here at all?
:rofl:

Listen. I didn't pick four or six random, inconsequential things that Obama did wrong. The brutal truth is that some policy decisions are so outrageous and fundamentally at odds with core liberal Democratic values that they cannot be counterbalanced or excused by citing other accomplishments. They need to be acknowledged and fixed.

I'm gonna repeat that one more time: I don't care how many worthy new proposals may be on the table in the next two years. I welcome any good policy with open arms. But the outrageous and egregious *wrong turns* of the past two years still need to be fixed.

Joe, I agree with you that coverage for pre-existing conditions has been sorely needed for a long time. That accomplishment is overshadowed, though, when stuck in legislation that also ENTRENCHES the profit-driven insurance corporations into our healthcare system. Extending health insurance coverage will not make up for the fact that the ironically named "Affordable Care Act" does not even PRETEND to address the problem of spiraling costs and, in fact, MANDATES that Americans buy from these bloodsuckers a product they can't afford to use.

No, coverage for pre-existing conditions does not excuse ignoring that problem. President Obama needs to FIX that.

The economy is NOT showing a great rebound. Americans are being systematically impoverished by the poor economy and a corporate system run amok, and President Obama has inexplicably taken this opportunity to reach out to the corporations with massive tax breaks and support for corporate mergers. Joe, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining; unemployment numbers are STILL abysmal. If you are as well-read as you claim, you surely have seen the many recent criticisms of how the numbers have been massaged. Corporations are raking in record profits, but they're sitting on the money rather than hiring American workers. Millions of Americans are watching their hopes for the future traded away for corporate votes and corporate money.

No, even marvelous high speed rail or public transportation initiatives aren't going to be enough to excuse that. President Obama needs to CHANGE his priorities and start valuing ordinary people over CEO's.

Joe, if Bush had had his TSA agents going up under your son's scrotum and touching your daughter's vulva through their clothing...if his TSA agents had made your mother remove her prosthetic breast and drenched your elderly father in his own urine...and if his Homeland Security director left open the option of expanding invasive patdowns or scanning procedures to trains and subway stations, you would have screamed bloody murder and been justifiably outraged at the shredding of our Fourth Amendment. The continuing unwarranted, intrusive groping and surveillance of American citizens is an OUTRAGE.

No, 20 new creative neighborhood revitalization initiatives will NOT make up for shredding our Bill of Rights. President Obama needs to STOP defending this outrage and FIX it.

Extending tax cuts for billionaires, while putting on the table slashes in safety nets for the poor and elderly, is a morally indefensible position for any President, most egregiously a Democratic one.

No, not even twenty great new proposals for education or the environment will make up for threatening our most vulnerable citizens. President Obama needs to DEFEND SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET, RATHER THAN THREATENING TO SLASH IT.

There is an excellent post on this board by Lydia Leftcoast, exhorting all Democrats to evaluate and respond to legislation from a position of core values, rather than the party of the person who proposes it. In a country where both parties are becoming less and less responsive to the people, that's a sorely needed reminder.

Some policy positions, some core Democratic values, are not negotiable. They are grounded in morality. These are a few of them.

Take care, my friend.

[udbcrzy2]

60. They boiled all the hope out of him

And it didn't take that long to do....

[Raine]

63. He's on the Corporate side, that is not being on my side. nt

[WiffenPoof]

69. NOT on my side...

or the side of the American worker.

But apparently I am now a Communist Pinko Pig.

-PLA

[SpartanDem]

72. Tell auto workers gettting profit sharing checks

for the first time in years he's not on the side of the American worker and I don't you'll be getting a warm reception.

[WiffenPoof]

73. Excellent Point...

I stand corrected in their case.

-PLA